A week ago I bought the NAD C352. My experience with this amp has been nothing short of a disappointment. Let me start at the beginning.
Three years ago I bought a pair of Infinity Delta 60 floorstanding speakers. I have been listening to these speakers in combination with my 14(!) year old pioneer amp, with a 2x60W output. I've always felt that this amp is a little underpowered compared to the 2x 180W output of the Delta 60's, however, I've been very happy with this combination up to this point.
A couple of weeks ago a friend of mine bought a JVC surround amplifier (5x 100W). As he was still undecided as to which speakers to buy I borrowed his amp and tried it with my speakers. I could hear a nice improvement in clarity in the mid and upper range. I decided it was time for a change of amp.
I bought the NAD C352 and connected it to my speakers. On the positive side, I could hear a big improvement in the bass-reproduction. Much clearer an a lot less 'muddy' then the Pioneer amp. However, the mid-range tones had almost disappeared, while the high frequencies were so clear that it hurt my ears and made listening to any type of music for an extended period of time almost unbearable.
I wasn't satisfied at all with the way it sounded and tried to find a remedy by using different cables, bi-wring the speakers, but there was hardly any noticeable improvement. Also tried the amp with different speakers (Infinity Alpha 50) but to no avail. The sound is still way below what I expected.
I've been lucky to sell the amp to a friend recently, but I'm still completely shocked by the fact that the NAD C352 produced such a terrible sound with my speakers.
So my question to you is this: Is it the Infinity speakers that do not go well at all with this amp, is my Pioneer amp better than I think or is it just me that cannot get used to the 'NAD' sound that the amp produces?
Any comments will be appreciated!
Cheers, Chris
nout
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Tough question! I don't think NAD C352 has too clear highs that it will make your ears bleed, the middtones are a bit restrained that's true, but I wouldn't call them muddy. ???? I'm not familiair with Infinity speakers so I don't know how it pairs with NAD. It's possible that you just don't like NAD's sound, although the reasons you mention (harsh treble, muddy midrange) are strange, I've had different experiences with this amp.
Interesting thought this: A drum kit sound ridiculoulsy harsh when your sat on the stool playing it, the grain from a hi-hat is incredible. Similiarly, the sound i get from my SG/Marshall isnt exactly velvet either.
Its possible that you prefer the less "hi-fi" sound of newer equipment, which will be more neutral at all frequency ranges. Since most hi-fi doesnt come near the real thing I would go with what you like the sound of and don't get hung up on it.
Interesting observation: its possible that you could actually prefer the less open tonal balance of older equipment since the NAD is generally accepetd as pretty neutral and capable of driving most speakers in its price range with relative ease.
Remember, a real drum kit sounds incredibly harsh, way more so than even a nasty bright tweeter, and boy do your ears hurt after a session. The sound from my SG/Marshall isnt exactly velvet either. So since most hi fi gear gets nowhere near the real thing, I would just go with what your ears tell you and don't get hung up about it, "fashion" is such a deceiptful friend...
Chris if you have plans to change the amp go for Yamaha AX 496. I bought one a few days back.I took it to another showroom selling Jamo, NAD, Denon etc. to try out on Jamo speakers. This guy had quoted 340 USD for NAD 352 after discount (He is having a SALE for a month). I got Yamaha AX 496 for just 235 USD without any discount (Yamaha do not have a SALE out here it seems) and the dealer has a 7 day trial period and I could get full refund if not happy. So if NAD sounded better my plan was to give Yamaha back. Got it connected to Jamo D570 and E855 through a switch. And wow NAD dealer himself was shocked to hear it. He sat in the listening room for nearly 20 minutes ignoring other customers!!His comment was not even try NAD. "Keep Yamaha" he said even though he could sing praises for NAD and tie one to my back and increase his cash register!!Yamaha drove both speakers very well. The sound was smooth.Bass rich, mid clear and treble pleasant with the tone bypass. I had to increase the treble by a point when I played E855. But later at home i found one link to tweets for bi-wiring in one speaker was loose that must have muffled the highs at the shop. Once tightened it is fine.
Now playing well at home with Jamo E855 with a Yamaha CD player (CDC 695)and driving my Bose 321 nuts (if it had life). The combo brought out subtle sounds that Bose did not show. I was surpised when I connected my tape deck (Yamaha KXW 421)to AX 496 that I was not hearing many sounds when it was connected to Bose.
Very happy that I went for Yamaha. Saved 100 bucks as well as maybe my ears.(from what you guys wrote as well as the comment of NAD dealer)And wow what a look in that pitch black metal cabinet with a small metal door to conceal the knobs. The only drawback is one has to be closeby to read the labels of the controls. But the sound blows all that away.
Too bad. I was in the hunting for an affordably priced receiver and I could get a C352 used for like a day for a little more money, but if it was a good sounding amp then it would be worth it.
nout - Infinity's have always tended to have a very full midrange set. This goes back to the 70s and continues until this day. This is a huge advantage to some, but some people want more pronounced lows and highs.
I am not familiar with his models, but I will take a leap and say they follow in the same path. Speakers with less mids may actually sound better if the amp has harsh mids, so speakers without a real mid driver may sound better, but if you like the way your speakers sound with other amps as it seems you do, then I would say definitely sell the NAD and get another amp that you do like.
To further ca_convert's point a little more, perhaps the amp does have too much detail? Although I have read that it does have most of it in the lows and mids before, so this is not the first time I have heard that. A hi-hat should not sound too ear piercing unless it is really loud, but a crash can. If they sound real thin, then you have bad highs.
A good way you can tell if your amp or speakers is overly harsh on highs is if a crash will be the loudest at start and then ring out. If they do not ring out, often they sound ear piercing because you are only getting some of the frequency. And if when it should be getting quieter it does not then you have the same problem.
A good system will bring out flaws in a recording, but will sound like you have a band in your living room on a good recording.
To my ears two pieces of copper alloy smashed together repeatedley does not sound smooth, only when played through a "hi fi" systems as opposed to a system good at reproducing music. The hi-hat sounds even more harsh than a crash or ride cymbal since they tend to be smaller and therefore higher frequency, aswell as being less damped.
However, most new recordings are so manipulated and compressed in the studio, its almost seems pointless spending that much on a decent system, thats is until you unearth stuff recored by a producer who knows how to make a good recording. Remember not to confuse harshness with sibilance.
Just had my Nad C352 for a week, im using the headphone out jack (ok so maybe not the best test) but I can tell in comparision to my X-fi soundcards direct sound output (im using Senn HD595s) that the mids arent quite there, I can watch Dido Live in concert 2005 DVD/and half my music collection (FLAC/APE formats and even mp3s) that the mids are somewhat lacking I can hear the instruments and bells and whistles more evident when using the X-fi soundcard output over the Nad headphone output.
The lows/highs are good and sharp, the mids as I said before are bit lacking, trebles ok I expected more, though the bass is very good though much better then my old Sherwood AV amp. Id say the vocals are also slightly more muffeled with the Nad c352.
Still bit disapointed my old Sherwood AV amp provided a better headphone out the mids/trebles/highs were more detailed especially the vocals/instruments(thru headphone output!)
Yeah I proberly should get a headphone amp/ but my soundcard ones just fine and clear/ Take into considering my opinions are based from using Senn HD595 headphones! So thru speakers maybe different.
Nad amps are restrained in the treble and as such are best partnered with a revealing speaker. This same speaker could sound horribly bright with another brand of amp. Hifi is all about synergy. I'd say that if the Nad sounded awful then your speakers, or room acoustics, are to blame. There is of course the argument that after years of listening to the Pioneer, your ears needed time to become accustomed to the sound of the Nad - you may then have found that you preferred it. Perhaps you didn't give it long enough!
Yeah it is of course possible ive still got the nad amp actually but theres no denying the mid range sounds clearer thru my X-fi soundcard output...
I didnt have a pioneer amp ive used a Sherwood AV amp though and yeah your right the signature sound is different but its not a bad one the bass is better/more punchy but again mids lacking. And gotta remember im not even using speakers im using headphones ;)
Overall I gotta let me ears do the deciding and I think the nads going back...
Bradjm63
Unregistered guest
Posted on
On the subject of the 352 does anyone know how it compares with the HK970 ?
Could be the headphones, could be the headphone out socket on the Nad. I'm sure that through good speakers the sound would be better. Still, the amp does present music in its own way - perhaps you just don't like it. Nothing wrong with that.
Isn't the headphone amp in an integrated amp seperate from the power amp that drives your speakers? That seems to be the case with my NAD separates. If this is true, then the two amps may sound somewhat different. - Just a thought.